Did the first Christians

[Lynn73]

That's what I'd like to know. The Bible calls them Christians.

 

[eoe]

Early Christians, such as Saint Ignatius of Antioch (who was martyred in about 110), used the term to describe the whole Church - the word's literal meaning is universal or whole - as opposed to the local Church, and excluding adherents of sects or heretical groups.
A letter that Saint Ignatius wrote to Christians in Smyrna in about 107 is the earliest surviving witness to the use of the term "catholic Church" (Smyrnaeans, 8).[1] By it Saint Ignatius designated the Christian Church in its universal aspect, excluding heretics, such as those who disavow "the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again" (Smyrnaeans, 7).[2] He called such people "beasts in the shape of men, whom you must not only not receive, but, if it be possible, not even meet with" (Smyrnaeans, 4).[3]

Dang. 17 years too late to be early christians or does this count? I know you said you wanted it to be pre-90AD but 107 ain't bad right?

 

[ScottBot]

"Poreuthentes oun mathmteusate panta ta ethan, baptizontees autous eis to onama tou patpos kai tou uiou sai tou agion pneumatos."

Nope. Nowhere in the Bible are Chrisitans called "Catholic."

What evidence do you have that the first Christians (roughly 30-90 AD) were called "Catholic?"


- Josiah


.

There is none. The first written evidence we have is a letter from St. Ignatius of Antioch in which he calls the CHURCH Catholic. Ignatius was a firm believer in the hierarchal structure of the church, which appears to be well established less than 70 years after Christ's ascension.

"Wherever the bishop appears, let the congregation be present, just as wherever Jesus Christ is, so is the catholic church." - 8th Letter to the Smyrneans

 

[eoe]

If anyone would like to read part of that letter:

CHAPTER VII.--LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.
CHAPTER VIII.--LET NOTHING BE DONE WITHOUT THE BISHOP.
See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
CHAPTER IX.--HONOUR THE BISHOP.
Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness [of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil. Let all things, then, abound to you through grace, for ye are worthy. Ye have refreshed me in all things, and Jesus Christ [shall refresh] you. Ye have loved me when absent as well as when present. May God recompense you, for whose sake, while ye endure all things, ye shall attain unto Him.

But you know what does he know after all. Ignatius was only a student of Peter and John so he probably had a bunch of stuff wrong. I mean he talks about the Eucharist being real AND a bishop too. No way he could have known anything.... HE was only the third patriarch of Antioch.

 

[ScottBot]

If anyone would like to read part of that letter:



But you know what does he know after all. Ignatius was only a student of Peter and John so he probably had a bunch of stuff wrong. I mean he talks about the Eucharist being real AND a bishop too. No way he could have known anything....

If he only had a KJV bible available to him he would have been steered away from such a grave error.

 

[a_ntv]

Are you saying that Paul began a process of "changing who Jesus was?"

In facts, as soon as 40 years after Jesus death, there where already a lots of different ways to understand christianity
- the way of Paul and John
- the way of James, the brother of the Lord (who followed also the Jews Laws)
- the gnostic way (salvation through secret knowledge)

If we follow the line of Paul and John, in 80 years we get a lot of new divisions:
- Marcione way (God of old testament is different from God of Christ)
- Montano way (waiting for the End of the World on about 170 a.c)
- and so on

(each of those had his own gospels, letters, readings)

It was only in the next two centuries that the "orthodox way" grow to became the main stream (and so orthodoxy defined what is in the Bible and waht is not in)

I dont think it is correct to use the world HERETIC for the early divisions. There was not jet a unity to divide!!! No Catholic indeed

For sure it is correct to fight againt false believe, because He is the True.

 

[eoe]

The Bible calls them Christians.

Hey Lynn get this. Ignatius was the Patriarch of Antioch when this was written.

(Acts 11:26) And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Ain't that a kick in the pants? Confirmation of the Eucharist and the heirarchy of the church in the same time that the book of Acts was written from the patriarch of the city where the disciples were first called Christians.

Thoughts?

(did you happen to see the part where he says: "he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil."?)

 

[ScottBot]

Hey Lynn get this. Ignatius was the Patriarch of Antioch when this was written.


Ain't that a kick in the pants? Confirmation of the Eucharist and the heirarchy of the church in the same time that the book of Acts was written from the patriarch of the city where the disciples were first called Christians.

Thoughts?

(did you happen to see the part where he says: "he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil."?)

Its not in the bible.

 

[Leah]

IMO, it still is. Always has been, always will be. The gates of hell shall not prevail against it, although men certainly have tried - and still do, doing their best to divide Christian from Christian.


MY $0.01...


Pax.


- Josiah


.

YES!!

 

[jckstraw72]

Nope. Nowhere in the Bible are Chrisitans called "Catholic."

What evidence do you have that the first Christians (roughly 30-90 AD) were called "Catholic?"


- Josiah

since we realize that "catholic" means universal, what difference does it make if the universal church was specifically called universal or not?

 

[ScottBot]

since we realize that "catholic" means universal, what difference does it make if the universal church was specifically called universal or not?

Yes, if its not in the bible its a man-made doctrine. Haven't you been paying attention man?

 

[Yeznik]

Whats even more interesting is the first people who worshipped Christ were the Magi. And we know that the Magi were from the east and most probably Zoroastrians.

 

[ScottBot]

Whats even more interesting is the first people who worshipped Christ were the Magi. And we know that the Magi were from the east and most probably Zoroastrians.

Most recent scholarly analysis thinks them to be Mythraic mystics.

 

[jckstraw72]

Most recent scholarly analysis thinks them to be Mythraic mystics.

scholarly shmolarly. thats what i say.

 

[Yeznik]

Most recent scholarly analysis thinks them to be Mythraic mystics.

That is an offshoot from Zoroastrianism. Just like Zurvanism was. Great post btw. I have researched it a little, the Magi were not only the top religious priest but kings as well. I have heard that they were either Parthian (Persian) Armenian, Arabic, Indian (from India).

 

[jckstraw72]

I have researched it a little, the Magi were not only the top religious priest but kings as well.

priests and kings? sounds like Melchizedek and Jesus. woot woot

 

[ScottBot]

scholarly shmolarly. thats what i say.

Well, they are refered to as Magi, which was a title of mystics of the Mithraic cults. It would be appropriate, considering that outside of paganism, Mithraism was the religion that was most competitive with Christianity outside of Jewish circles. For Mithraic mystics to rever Christ as a king would mean that there was a rejection of their own beliefs.

 

[jckstraw72]

Well, they are refered to as Magi, which was a title of mystics of the Mithraic cults. It would be appropriate, considering that outside of paganism, Mithraism was the religion that was most competitive with Christianity outside of Jewish circles. For Mithraic mystics to rever Christ as a king would mean that there was a rejection of their own beliefs.

si si, im just skeptic of "scholars" after taking a NT class that set out to disprove everything in the NT, and after reading a Jesus Seminar book (didnt know who they were when i bought it).

 

[ScottBot]

si si, im just skeptic of "scholars" after taking a NT class that set out to disprove everything in the NT, and after reading a Jesus Seminar book (didnt know who they were when i bought it).

Ack! No, I am talking about beno fide Christian scholars who are intent on PROVING the valiity of Christ, not vice versa.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

There is none.

My point exactly...


So far there is zero evidence to support the OP's claim that the first Christians were called "Catholic."

Nor does the verse offered support the claim; there's nothing in the Bible that suggests that.

Early Christians, such as Saint Ignatius of Antioch (who was martyred in about 110), used the term to describe the whole Church - the word's literal meaning is universal or whole - as opposed to the local Church, and excluding adherents of sects or heretical groups.
A letter that Saint Ignatius wrote to Christians in Smyrna in about 107 is the earliest surviving witness to the use of the term "catholic Church" (Smyrnaeans, 8).[1] By it Saint Ignatius designated the Christian Church in its universal aspect

The term in the second century was used to refer to the WHOLE number of Christians. "Catholic" - whole, universal, complete, all-embracing, the whole number.


MY $0.01...


Pax.


- Josiah


.